To put it more simply... how is being prone to a disease due to a genetic defect (or just bad luck) a personal choice?

Keep in mind that when you say "government funded," you mean TAXPAYER funded. Why on earth wouldn't personal requirements for such services be used to determine whether or not we need them?

Obviously it's taxpayer funded. I'm quite aware of that, and I'm quite OK with it, since my taxes fund out healthcare.

And I think you missed my point...

Person A may not use healthcare but may use the police service (such as the person described above)

Person B (e.g. me) may never have needed to personally call upon the police or the fireservice, but may have occassionally seen the doctor for healthcare...

Why should PERSON A specifically get to determine what services are tax payer funded? Why are their needs more important than others, and how can they be against public health care, but quite happy for others (e.g. me) to fund THEIR use of other services (police, fire) which I may never use personally?

My point is it's hypocritical... you can't say you don't want YOUR taxes to pay for others healthcare, but be quite happy to take others taxes to pay for YOUR use of the fire or police services. It makes no sense. The use of taxes isn't determined by ONE PERSON's needs. It's determined by the needs of the nation, and MILLIONS of people in the US need healthcare because their lives are at risk, but they're not getting it.

I see the logic, but most American's disapprove of the current health care bill and it's being pushed through anyway. :P

But it's not being pushed through. They've already been forced to remove the public option. And IF it eventually does get through it'll look nothing like it originally did, as he's compromised a lot so as to get the votes he needs.

And how does it make sense to say you see the logic but are against it anyway. This is my whole point, whenever this debate comes up, people on the anti-public healthcare side of the fence make all these statements, but then when questioned further, they can't back them up with logic (I'm not talking about you personally, but more in general).

When I say "I see the logic," what I mean is that I see your side of the debate. I however, have a different way of looking at things.

The only reason a majority of Americans are against it is because they took the one thing that would have revolutionized health care (in this country) was taken out due to Republican (and Lieberman) pressure. Otherwise, the Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking everyone agrees with their message.

Lmfao. Sound logic! ;D

I just want to say, for the record:

public healthcare = good for everyone

private healthcare = good for rich people

Tada! I am a genius.

What a sweeping generalization. We have private healthcare and we are nowhere near rich. We live on one income and still pay for healthcare for ourselves and our daughter. On the other hand, I know plenty of people from Canada who hate (and I mean DETEST) their public healthcare system. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you were joking.

I've never met a Canadian who wasn't happy with their healthcare system. And the majority of people I know here in the UK are happy with the treatment they receive under our public healthcare system. But this is just hearsay... these are the statistics:

In 2005, the majority (85%) of Canadians were very or somewhat satisfied with the health care services they received.

In the UK a 2005 Healthcare Commission patient survey reported 92% of patients as happy with their NHS care.

In America in 2001:
- 46% are extremely or very satisfied with the care they received in general
- 42% are somewhat satisfied
- Only 34% of respondents are extremely or very confident that they will be able to get the treatments they need in the next 10 years
- Only 22% are extremely or very confident that they will be able to afford healthcare without financial hardship in the next 10 years

And some others...

In 2004 one-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16% of Americans said that the U.S. health care system needs only minor changes.

Sixty percent of patients in New Zealand told researchers that they were able to get a same-day appointment with a doctor when sick, nearly double the 33% of Americans who got such speedy care. Only Canada scored lower, with 27% saying they could get same-day attention. Americans were also the most likely to have difficulty getting care on nights, weekends, or holidays without going to an emergency room.

Four in 10 U.S. adults told researchers that they had gone without needed care because of the cost, including skipping prescriptions, avoiding going to the doctor, or skipping a recommended test or treatment.


A 2000 WHO report found that France leads the world in health care. It rated the UK 18th and the US 37th - despite being the country which spends the most per head.

The rating is based on a comprehensive assessment of medical treatment, including factors such as availability of medical insurance and pharmacies.

Italy comes second in the WHO league table, with Singapore, Spain, Austria and Japan among other countries in the top 10.

She means it's good for people running your healthcare. Bad for you.

I'd like to say I am not rich by any means, but any time I have needed to go to the doctor, be it for eye care, migraines, female problems, whatever, I've always been able to afford it with my private insurance.

Likewise.

I think I'd pay more in taxes for a National Healthcare than I do for myself monthly with my private insurance (only like $40.)
And my insurance covers everything I've needed. Including prescriptions with no Co-Pays for anything, lab work, etc.

Except we have national healthcare and we actually pay LESS in taxes than you do over there. The amount we pay in taxes to sustain our national healthcare system is very small. You have to remember also that you don't only pay insurance fees... you also pay deductables when you require treatment. I'd be pretty sure the amount we pay in taxes is less than you pay on insurance anyway, but that is ALL we pay. No extras when we get sick (except GP prescriptions, which are £5 per prescription, so a tiny amount. We don't pay anything for hospital prescriptions though).

Although... is a 'co-pay' a deductible? I've never heard that term before.

Uh, a co-pay is like, money you pay before you see the doctor or when you get a prescription.
For my old insurance; it was $20 when I went to the doctor, $15 for non-generic prescriptions, and $10 for generic.

For this I don't have to pay anything.

I've never heard anything about deductibles. What exactly is that?

Do you know what a deductible is in car insurance? It's the same thing.

Let's say you have a $500 deductible. That means that the first $500 you have to pay, anything after that the insurance pays.

Lol I've never had car insurance. So no.
But I understand that explanation ;D

I still don't have to pay anything like that :P
I get I guess a deductible after I use up the $3,000 thats in my "account" through my insurance. But I only have to pay $1,500 out of pocket, and everything past that is covered.

Pretty much exactly on. My deductible is 500 dollars, but mine is anything after 500 dollars my insurance pays.

We already have health care for the poor and we pay their bills too (ie: welfare.) Our Federal government sucks at running things and keeping their promises and so far so does Obama. In this country you have responsibility for yourself, well at least you used to. In America, you aren't supposed to depend on the paychecks of the people around you to supply your needs. My grandparents didn't get free health care, no one paid their bills and no one bought their food for them. This made them less dependent on the government and more dependent on themselves. I'm not saying it's not ok for people to use food stamps or welfare (my family has before) but to LIVE off of them, which is what majority (note: I did NOT say all) of the people on these things do. I have seen it first hand. This, in turn, makes them less productive members of society. Programs like these make people dependent on the government and not on themselves. OUR constitution says that the government is run by the people, but the more they make people dependent on the government the less control they have. There is a reason our founding forefathers wanted the government in the hands of the people and not the other way around. What is so wrong with tweaking what we already have available and make it more accessible but those that don't have jobs will have to FIND one or try to to get help?? Why do we have to do YET ANOTHER government run program that fails (look at social security... its bankrupt and there are more people taking on that in and we BORROW money to make up for it!) I could go on.... but this says enough so far.

ACTUALLY. Majority USES welfare for when they NEED it. Jesus. That is one thing that just pisses me off, everyone automatically blames the welfare people.

We can't eliminate a vital social program because a few people decided to abuse the system. You don't do things that way.

There are millions of Americans who don't qualify for medicare and who can't afford healthcare (including millions of children who are suffering as a result). Only the very poor qualify for medicare.

And times have changed. Healthcare is more expensive than it was in your grandparents time. People can't afford it. Furthermore we're in a recession. You may have been lucky enough not to have been hit yet, but there are millions of people who've worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes, who are now unable to find jobs (because the jobs are no longer there), despite spending every day looking, and who have lost their health insurance as a result. Why should they (and their families, their children) suffer and die because of no more than bad luck? You talk as if it's their own fault, as if they're lazy, but in fact a large number of people in recent years have just been unlucky.

I don't know how it is in other states, but children in Wisconsin are guaranteed healthcare. I think it's called Badger Care. I got it through the state when I was a kid, and my dad got laid off from work, and any other time he was laid off work.
I went to the same doctor I went to when I had private insurance, and all of my prescriptions were covered. If I were in school, I can get that I believe until I'm 24. And when you have kids it covers your whole family.

I see no reason that anyones children are suffering =/
If a backwater state like Wisconsin has healthcare for all children, I'm quite sure most (if not all) of the other states do as well.

That's not true and I'm surprised by how many Americans don't know how the system works in their own country. I looked into it last time this was discussed on Bloop and some states definitely means test for healthcare for children. I think it was a Maryland website I was looking at but it clearly said children only got free healthcare if their parents earned less than a certain amount.

I also previously found a figure for the number of children in America without healthcare and it was in the millions.

I'm at work now but will try and find the references again later.